“Kloo2yoo,” the moderator of Reddit’s Men’s Rights Subreddit, is worried that racists in his subreddit will give Men’s Rights a bad name. So he’s put out a call to some of the more artistic readers of the subreddit to come up with a nice new logo for it, to show how broad-minded and all-inclusive Reddit’s Men’s Rightsers really are. Well, not literally all-inclusive. As Kloo put it in his call for artiistic help:
New logo needed, to emphasize racial and lgbt inclusiveness, but not feminism.
Oh, but even that turned out to be a bit too inclusive for some of the commenters there. Specifically, they objected to the “L” portion of LBGT. And some of the Ts. As white_cloud put it:
I don’t think you need to appeal to the L in LGBT. It is well-known that lesbians are the most radical of all feminists. They will never feel welcome here and we should not go out of our way to make them feel welcome. Male to female trans pretty much the same thing. They’ve already renounced their male gender, they don’t care about male rights
Scott2508 concurred:
ok i am in favour of inclusivness and im not sure if i am going to word this right so stick with me , the one thing i am curious about is how we bring ourself in line with the lesbian [angle] of it all simply due to the hostility that can arise from that community towards men
Kloo replied:
point taken. we can embrace lesbian mras, without embracing lesbian supremacists.
Apparently these are the only types of lesbians in the world.
In any case, despite these design constraints, I have come up with what I think is a very compelling logo that I think will convey just what Kloo would like to convey. What do you think, guys?
Are men’s issues important? […] In my mind, no.
The feminist shows its true colors at last. See, if you wait long enough, eventually the lies will waver for a second and you can see the rampant and vicious misandry that was always lying beneath the surface.
And you claim to be a moderate feminist! No wonder the MRM despises you guys.
We understand your point, Arksibalt. But *why* do you think that’s true?
Tabby: Derailing issues, exactly. ANd the exact same thing will happen in spaces dedicated to anti-racist and support by people of color, for people of color–white people want to come in and make it all about them.
The thing is, there have to be BOTH safe and controlled spaces AND coalition spaces–and coalition is hard and difficult and dangerous while safe and controlled spaces while necessary can sometimes be too insular. That’s why BOTH and MORE are necessary–not just ONE.
Bernice Johnson Reagon “Coalition Politics”
http://shewhostumbles.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/bernice-johnson-reagon-coalition-politics-turning-the-century/
And yeah, having a fancy pants logo won’t do much if the racist language (and “thugboy” and “ghetto” are both racist) continues to be used in the postings and discussions.
Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_fish, some fish don’t need all that much water.
MRAL, way to remove context.
MRAL: There is a huge difference between dictionary definitions (and most dictionaries support the controlling ideologies) and connotations–the associations people have with words because of how they are used in real life. You are a white man. You will not be aware of racist meanings in terms because you don’t have to be, you’ve never been the target of them (ditto sexism–like “screeching” which is mostly applied to women, and has lots of sexist usage).
Plus, appealing to a basic dictionary definition in an internet argument is a fast way to a lose–I spend a lot of time telling my students in first year comp NOT to use basic dictionary definitions even if they had to use them in high school because the complex nuances of multiple definitions are part of complicated arguments, and trying to settle things with a basic definition (one that does not go into the history of the word–like the Oxford English Dictionary–showing how meanings of words change over time and how they’re used) is a quick way to a failing grade.
MRAL, way to remove context.
I don’t think I removed context at all. You said, compared to “other groups” (presumably pretty much everyone except men and maybe whites), men’s issues are unimportant. Pretty fucking cut and dry to me.
@filetofswedishfish
“Ion, did you not read Ozy’s “No, really, what about the menz?” post? I agree with a lot of what she says in it.”
Yea I read her post, it started of with the same self serving women are perfection crap and quickly went downhill. Her BIG plan is to allow men to be more like women without being shamed. Oh how lucky can men get?
Just like where you said
“In that vein, I, personally, would love to see men being ridiculed less for being Stay-at-homers, and generally good, loving, emotionally bonded fathers. I mean, look at the feminists who write for The Good Men Project.”
Right off the bat men aren’t good loving fathers, we can do soooo much better. If only men were as perfect as women. Same shit as Ozzy. And the good men project makes an excellent morning douche to start off you feminist day. Shit I was banned from that site on day one. Just more of the same old men are shit, women are perfection incarnate, try being more like them.
Save it princess. Take all your LGBTQWXYZ gang, along with the feminist hive and run to the State to decide what you’ll enact as morality laws.
Lesbianism also technically isn’t a sexuality since there’s no real sex involved, given that the act is biologically impossible between two females.
HAHAHAH!
But the main problem is you confuse sexuality or sexual identification with the act of sex — virgins have sexuality and sexual identities.
And lesbians are perfectly capable of having sex.
Okay ithiliana, fine. I just don’t think that “thug” carries any racist connotations. That word is used all the time to describe criminals, pirates, al Qaeda, whatever. It carries no objectionable baggage.
Arksibalt, I really do not understand how you arrived at your conclusion. Could you perhaps tell us how you came to postulate that a penis is required for sex? I think you may want to collect more preliminary data before even making the hypothesis that led you to your conclusion, as I can personally attest to the existence of sex that does not involve a penis.
Same with “ghetto”. Seriously, WTF? Sure, I guess it can be used in a racist way (“hey, there are black people there, what a ghetto”) but it’s a pretty widely used word that describes any cesspool from Depression-era Hoovervilles to Calcutta. Get some fucking perspective.
NWO- Gladly. But you can’t come in our blanket fort.
MRAL: Yeah, of course in relation to other groups. Those other groups are facing real risks of violence, not to mention other, less obvious, discriminations. The big problems need to get fixed first, and we can move on to people who are suffering less. And if you can looked at the people I listed as examples, there’s plenty of men included. You’re just pissy that I’m not centered around your definition of men’s issue, and not properly concerned about something that affects quality of life a lot less than you think, and a lot less than other people’s lives get damaged.
filet – “Feminism is here to appeal to whoever likes it, regardless of the state of their genitalia/gender identity/presentation/whatever.”
Excellent.
Ion/MRAL – Yes, there are feminists who want to exclude men (Twisty Faster is one example.) However, for the more moderate feminists – and that’s most of us – DO want our spaces to be inclusive. Just because some people identifying as feminist want to keep men out doesn’t mean that the rest of us need to subscribe to that, nor does it make their opinions somehow more “official” than ours. You are doing a disservice to many on the board by lumping us in with the male-exclusive radfems.
Plenty of people – men and women alike – care about men’s issues, or are at least open enough to be willing to learn about them. Honestly, I think the MRM would gain a lot of traction if it did become more inclusive, more open, and more tolerant of diversity. Help you ditch the bitter misogynist stereotype, y’know?
Also, MRAL, re: your filet quote – that’s what we call “quote mining.” Context matters, you completely changed it by omitting a key part of the sentence. That’s cheap.
Take a look at all the acts which two women can do with each other. It shouldn’t take too much examination to realise that what consitutes as ‘sex’ for lesbians would just be ‘foreplay’ for normal people. It’s restrained, inconclusive half-sex and they simply cannot progress to the next level without the presence of cock. Yes, there are strapons, but a plastic dick is as artificial as their sexuality.
Arksibalt – so, in your opinion, oral sex isn’t sex?
Meanwhile, in totally unrelated news, feminists don’t want no steenking men.
http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/guest-post-julie-bindel/#more-1185
I am becoming increasingly wild with rage and frustration at the mantra introduced into common feminist parlance, which goes: “We have to include men” and “we need men on board.”
also, the fact that you consider PiV sex “the next level” – as if it were some sort of defined hierarchy (dear god, the ridiculous “base” system) is interesting.
As long as the MRM is rebranding they should just rename it the Abuser’s Lobby and call it a day. Truth in advertising!! ( not likely to happen, though)
“Meanwhile, in totally unrelated news, feminists don’t want no steenking men.”
Some feminists do, some feminists don’t. Just because one feminist doesn’t want to include men doesn’t mean we all feel the same way, or that the No Men version of feminism is somehow the canon one.
Yeah, of course in relation to other groups. Those other groups are facing real risks of violence, not to mention other, less obvious, discriminations. The big problems need to get fixed first, and we can move on to people who are suffering less.
Firstly, this is pretty much the end of feminism, because under this logic we should suspend all activism until the many poverty-stricken peoples of Africa are administered permanent aid. They have it eight billion times worse (women AND men) than the privileged arrogant fymynyst fembots sitting on their fat asses and bitching on internet blogs.
Secondly, this is the fundamental reason MRAs and feminists will not get along. Men do not have it better than women (this is why the MRM exists, Christ). Furthermore, the gendered problems are too intertwined to fairly “focus on” one gender over the other, because you just end up fucking one (read: men) over. MRAs recognize this and would like to work with men’s gender issues, because feminists sure as FUCK aren’t going to do that, as you’ve pretty much just admitted.
Thirdly, just admit that these “other groups” are basically everyone except the male gender.
As long as the MRM is rebranding they should just rename it the Abuser’s Lobby and call it a day.
You’re a misandrist, a shamer, a slanderer, a liar, and a fucking idiot.
Yeah, it gets them thinking about how men’s rights is a movement that fights for things that are ultimately bad for children, bad for communities, and only good for men who want the taxpayers to cover their asses.
Come on. You can do better than that. There are important men’s issues that should be addressed. Why do you guys always have to marginalize yourselves?
Julie Bindel is a pretty classic fymynyst. Fuck her, obviously, but I mean, she’s pretty par for the course, so whatever.
The MRM exists because domestic abusers and child rapists want to continue to victimize people without being punished.